Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
According to a highly dubious study recently released by a maker of paper-shredders, 47-percent of Americans said they would “like to be Bill Gates.” The other 53-percent said they preferred being powerless, poor, and not knowing what to do with Visual Basic.
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Source: Joshua Topolsky
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
We’ve seen gadgets blamed for increased violence, the fall of contemporary art, and even broken hearts, but the latest study to pin more blame on the gizmos we simply can’t do without purports that teens are missing out on crucial sleep thanks to their gadget addictions. According to a recent report by The Sleep Council, “gadgets in bedrooms such as computers and TVs are fueling poor quality ‘junk sleep,’ and considering that nearly a quarter of respondents “admitted that they fell asleep watching TV, listening to music, or with other equipment still running more than once a week,” it’s not too hard to understand how the conclusion was drawn. Nevertheless, it was suggested that these electronics were hindering kids’ ability to get the recommended eight hours of sleep each night, but hey, when (most) free nights begin at 9:00PM, how can ya blame ‘em?
[Thanks, Joel]
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Source: Darren Murph
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
Yeah, we’ve seen bizarre apparatuses that bring about otherworldly feelings, but new studies have reportedly been able to induce out-of-body experiences with just a set of “virtual reality goggles, a camera, and a stick.” Apparently, the “research reveals that the sense of having a body, of being in a bodily self, is actually constructed from multiple sensory streams,” and when the newfangled system forces individuals to peer at “an illusory image of themselves” while the stick prods them “in a certain way,” the guinea pigs said they felt as if they had been removed from their bodies. Of course, it seems the real purpose here circles more around the science of the brain rather than hashing out a DIY guide to accomplish this on your own, and no, so far as we can tell, it (unfortunately) does not play Doom.
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Source: Darren Murph
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
After Australian researchers delivered a damning report claiming that HP’s printers were at the top of the heap for expelling dangerous, potentially cancer-causing, ultra-fine particles, the company responded with a lengthy press release which essentially “debunked” the study’s findings — and now the researchers have fired back to the Australian press. The printer-maker claimed that the study of ultra-fine particles was a “new” science, to which Lidia Morawska, head of the project, says simply isn’t true. According to her, the European Commission has added a particle number limit to its emissions standards for light vehicles, which Morawska claims is a normally “lengthy” process. Additionally, she says that there is “considerable toxicological evidence of potential detrimental effects of ultra-fine particles on human health,” based on the current World Health Organization’s Air Quality Guidelines. The scientist further refutes HP’s claims that the particles “cannot be accurately characterised by analytical technology,” by stating that the study found plenty of printer models which carried no dangerous emissions at all, suggesting clear differences in the variety of particle output. Obviously this debate is just getting started, though we’ll be avoiding superfluous laser printing while the jury is out… just to be safe.
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Source: Joshua Topolsky
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
Oh noes, that study claiming that laser printer particles are dangerous is shaping up to be just as contentious as those studies proving that cellphones are/aren’t dangerous. As you’ll recall, the Queensland University study tested 62 “relatively new” laser printers from Canon, HP, and Toshiba and found 17 to be “high emitters” of potentially dangerous, ultra-fine toner particles. Of these, all but one (a Toshiba model) were manufactured by HP. As you’d expect, HP has issued a formal response courtesy of Tuan Tran, HP’s vice president of marketing for supplies. Perhaps predictably after such a damning report, HP’s response can be summarized as an attempt to both discredit and mock the research while standing behind the safety of their products. Tuan first ridicules the study by stating “the nature and chemical composition of such particles - whether from a laser printer or from a toaster - cannot be accurately characterized by analytical technology.” He goes on to say that, “Testing of ultrafine particles is a very new scientific discipline. There are no indications that ultrafine particle (UFP) emissions from laser printing systems are associated with special health risks.” HP does agree with the study’s assessment that “more testing in this area is needed” and claims to be actively engaged in the process. Since HP’s statement came our way via a PR agency and not HP’s official news site, we offer you their complete response after the break. While it’s tempting to label HP the Big Tobacco of the printer business, don’t; it’s far too early to jump to such conclusions. Still, with a press release like this, they’re not making it easy on anyone.Continue reading HP ridicules Queensland study linking laser printer particles to potential health issues
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Source: Thomas Ricker
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
In today’s edition of How Your Office is Slowly Killing You, a study emerging from Queensland University of Technology suggests that laser printers can emit clouds of ultra-fine particles that compare to “cigarette smoke and motor vehicle emissions.” Reportedly, 13 out of 40 models tested were deemed “high emitters” of particles from the toner, and while office photocopiers failed to produce similar results, concentrations of microscopic particles near laser printers were found to be “five times higher than outdoor levels often produced by traffic” in a given investigation. Currently, no efforts have been made to actually study the chemistry of the emissions, but considering that such fine objects could easily sink “to the very lowest reaches of the lungs,” we’d say that’s reason enough to request an airtight office a few floors underground.
[Image courtesy of Gripguard]
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Source: Darren Murph
